6 Oklahoma opinions name it 2 courts 1988–2007 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Oklahoma courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Parks v. Flint Steel Corp.green2 sentences2006See Peabody Galion, supra; Parks v. Flint Steel Corp., 1988 OK 64 , 755 P.2d 680 . 2003See Parks v. Flint Steel Corp., 1988 OK 64 , 755 P.2d 680 , which explained: In Oklahoma, the last injurious exposure rule is designed to apply in situations where an employee contracts an “occupational disease,” and then establishes that such disability resulted from causal conditions at two or more places of successive employment. | 1 | 3 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Oklahoma. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Smith v. Workers' Compensation Court
neutral
2 sentences2003Smith v. Workers’ Compensation Court, 618 P.2d 942 (Okl.1980). 1988Smith v. Workers’ Compensation Court, 618 P.2d 942 (Okl.1980). | 2 | 1988–2003 |
Heat Transfer & Equipment v. Cauthon
green
2 sentences2007Except for cases involving silicosis or asbestosis, the last injurious exposure rule found in § 11(B)(4) "does not have a minimum quantity or quality of exposure before the last employer is Hable for the occupational disease." Heat Transfer & Equip., 2004 OK 80 at ¶ 9 , 100 P.3d at 725 . 2007Except for cases involving silicosis or asbestosis, the last injurious exposure rule found in § 11(B)(4) "does not have a minimum quantity or quality of exposure before the last employer is Hable for the occupational disease." Heat Transfer & Equip., 2004 OK 80 at ¶ 9 , 100 P.3d at 725 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Kerr Glass Co. v. Wilson
green
1 sentence1995Also see, Kerr Glass Co. v. Wilson, supra; Parks v. Kerr Glass, 880 P.2d 408 (Okla.App.1994) (cert, denied). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Parks v. Kerr Glass
green
1 sentence1995Also see, Kerr Glass Co. v. Wilson, supra; Parks v. Kerr Glass, 880 P.2d 408 (Okla.App.1994) (cert, denied). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Utica Square Salon of Beauty v. Barron
green
2 sentences1988Under the last injurious exposure rule, Flint insisted that Tower is the responsible employer, because “for all practical purposes, cumulative effect accidents and occupational diseases are essentially the same thing with but a different name.” To support this proposition, Flint places great reliance on the cases of Utica Square v. Barron, 595 P.2d 459 (Okl.App.1979) and Buntin v. Sheffield Steel, 707 P.2d 557 (Okl.App.1985). 1988In Utica Square , the Court of Appeals, stated that the last injurious exposure rule should "ap *683 ply to cumulative accidental injuries.” 595 P.2d at 462 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Buntin v. Sheffield Steel
neutral
1 sentence1988Under the last injurious exposure rule, Flint insisted that Tower is the responsible employer, because “for all practical purposes, cumulative effect accidents and occupational diseases are essentially the same thing with but a different name.” To support this proposition, Flint places great reliance on the cases of Utica Square v. Barron, 595 P.2d 459 (Okl.App.1979) and Buntin v. Sheffield Steel, 707 P.2d 557 (Okl.App.1985). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.